DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 7/24/26 is acknowledged. Claims 13-19 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention. Claims 1-12 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Virkar et al. (6,106,967).
Virkar et al. (6,106,967) teaches a planar solid oxide fuel cell stack with metallic foil interconnect. Each fuel cell unit includes a porous anode layer, a porous cathode layer and a dense electrolyte layer disposed between the porous anode and cathode layers. A flexible metallic foil interconnect is provided between the porous anode and porous cathode of adjacent fuel cell units (abstract and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 1, Virkar et al. (6,106,967) teaches the fuel cell structure including the anode, cathode, electrolyte and interconnects on either side of the fuel cell (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Virkar et al. (6,106,967) teaches the metallic interconnect sandwiches the fuel cell and is first interconnect of the first fuel cell while also being a second interconnect of the second fuel cell (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Virkar et al. (6,106,967) teaches the anode layer (16) having channels therein and made of anode material while the cathode layer (15) having channels therein and made of cathode materials. These anode walls and cathode walls are perpendicular to one another (Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 8-47).
Regarding claim 5, Virkar et al. (6,106,967) teaches the fuel cell units are electrically connected to each other to produce a desired voltage or current (col. 1, lines 39-42 and col. 4, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 6, Virkar et al. (6,106,967) teaches a manifold configured to deliver fuel to an inlet of anode layer, deliver oxidant to an inlet of cathode layer, exhaust excess fuel from an outlet of the anode layer and exhaust waste gases via an outlet of the cathode layer (Fig. 2 and col. 10, lines 10-23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virkar et al. (6,106,967) in combination with Poeppel et al. (4,476,196).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Virkar et al. (6,106,967) are incorporated here.
Virkar et al. (6,106,967) fails to teach a shell disposed around a perimeter of the stack.
Poeppel et al. (4,476,196) discloses a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of fuel cells where each fuel cell comprises an anode layer and a cathode layer on either side of an electrolyte layer. This fuel cell core is held within a pair of interconnects. In the stack, the interconnect layer is a first interconnect in one cell and a second interconnect in an adjacent cell. Poeppel et al. (4,476,196) further teaches that the anode and cathode layers comprise channels with walls between adjacent channels. The anode walls extend in a first direction and the cathode walls extend perpendicular to the first direction. The outer interconnects are electrically connected through a load. The fuel cell stack further comprises manifolds (claimed shell) to deliver fuel and oxidant and recover discharge reactants. These manifolds (claimed shell) are designed to form a shell around the stack. This shell is further installed within an insulated housing, as shown in figures 1 and 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Virkar et al. (6,106,967) fuel cell stack to include the manifold which is disposed around the perimeter of the stack and intersects corners of the stack as evidenced by Poeppel et al. (4,476,196) with the expectation of providing a fuel cell stack.
Regarding claims 8, Poeppel et al. (4,476,196) discloses channels (13,14) in the manifold for fuel inlet and exhaust outlet (Figs. 2,3; col. 4, lines 23-41 and col. 6, lines 20-56).
Regarding claim 9, an insulation (38) surrounds the shell and meets the claimed “external vessel”.
Regarding claim 10, Poeppel et al. (4,476,196) teaches the pressure differential between inlet and outlet of the fuel and the oxidant such as between fuel manifolds 20 and 19 which meets the claimed manifold being pressurized (col. 8, lines 29-47).
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
